Mental State Can Influence the Degree of Postoperative Axial Neck Pain Following Cervical Laminoplasty.

TitleMental State Can Influence the Degree of Postoperative Axial Neck Pain Following Cervical Laminoplasty.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2019
AuthorsOshima Y, Matsubayashi Y, Taniguchi Y, Hayakawa K, Fukushima M, Oichi T, Oka H, K Riew D, Tanaka S
JournalGlobal Spine J
Date Published2019 May

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To investigate factors influencing the incidence of moderate to severe postoperative axial neck pain following cervical laminoplasty.

Methods: We reviewed 125 patients with cervical myelopathy who underwent double-door laminoplasty. The primary outcomes were the Numerical Rating Scale score (NRS score, 0-10) for neck pain, the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey score (Physical and Mental Component Summary scores [PCS and MCS, respectively]), and satisfaction. Imaging parameters on plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging were also evaluated. Patients with moderate to severe postoperative neck pain (NRS ≥ 5) were compared with those with no or mild neck pain (NRS ≤ 4).

Results: One hundred and three patients (82%) with complete data were eligible for inclusion. There were 67 men and 36 women, with a mean age of 65 years (32-89 years). Twenty-five patients (23%) had moderate to severe postoperative axial pain (NRS ≥ 5) and were compared with the other 78 patients (NRS ≤ 4), which revealed several predictive factors, including female sex, the presence of preoperative neck pain, low postoperative PCS, low preoperative and postoperative MCS, and satisfaction with the treatment. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the postoperative MCS ( = .002) was a risk factor for postoperative neck pain, although the preoperative MCS did not reach statistical significance ( = .06).

Conclusions: Patients with a low mental state, possibly before surgery, are at a high risk for postoperative axial neck pain. None of the imaging parameters were statistically different.

Alternate JournalGlobal Spine J
PubMed ID31192097
PubMed Central IDPMC6542172